Confusion between 2 cpus..

[Alwyn1892k]

I'm thinking of getting a new amd cpu based system built for myself but i'm confused between the Venice 3800 and San Diego 3700+ for the socket 939 mobo, which one should i get? (I can't get anything higher than these due to my budget)

While the 3800 Venice has a better clock speed the San Diego 3700+ has more L2 cache (1MB).. which one of the 2 would generally give a better performance?

Lastly I've read about the new socket M2 coming in Q1, should i wait for that or get a socket 939 based system with either of these cpu.. i'm a gamer (if that matters).. so is the athlon orleans cpu featuring a 1Mb L2 cache alongside the DDR2 667 worth the wait?..

Thanks.

 

[Fern]

Hi Alwyn1892k and Welcome to the forums!

I'm still on the older XP platform, so I can't help you much.

So, here's a free bump for you.

C'mon help him out guys!

Fern

 

[Furen]

I'm assuming this is for a gaming pc.

It depends:

If you plan on overclocking, then the 3700+ is the best thing you can get. A 200Mhz bump turns it into a 4000+, an extra 200 makes it into an fx-55.

If you dont plan on overclocking, then you wanna get the 3800+, since you'll get (on most situations) more performance out of the extra 200mhz than you will out of the extra cache.

Of course, none of this matters if your video card (or any other component) is underpowered. So if you need a bit more cash dont hesitate to drop down to even a 3500+ and spend a bit more on video.

About socket M2... I wouldnt expect to see it (at reasonable prices) untill Q2-Q3 2006 and performance is a big unknown right now. The only reason to wait for it is if you upgrade cpus (without upgrading mobos) rather often or if you will use the features that the M2 platform will bring (as in DRM, virtualization). I, personally, plan on upgrading one of my socket A systems to M2 next year and I'll probably end up turning that into my main system (or rather, I'll make a new system and discontinue a socket A system ^^).

 

[Dadofamunky]

He's right. I personally don't think you can go wrong either way but I'd probably go for clock speed. And definitely make sure your video card is adequate.

 

[anandtechrocks]

Both are really nice, personally I have a 3700+ (SD) and a 3200+ (Vience) and when clocked to the same speeds (OC'd to 2.6 Ghz on stock voltage) I can't see any difference at all. What I'm trying to say is that if you want the 3800+, I'd say go for the cheaper 3500+ or what I have and give it a nice OC. I got 600 Mhz out of my $200 Vience on stock voltage (and stock HS/ Fan!). Personally I think it is the best chip out right now. If you think you will need the extra cache, the 3700+ is great too.

 

[Vegitto]

There's multiple 3500+'s anandtechrocks. There's the Newcastle, Winchester, Venice and the San Diego, although it's hard to find it. If you can find it, get the 3500+ San Diego.

 

[Alwyn1892k]

thanks fern.. n to all others for the helpful inputs..

well i found this benchmark comparison of the 3800+ venice vs 3700+ san diego at -> http://www.compressorcooling.com/html/amd_athlon_64_san_diego_vs__ve.html

so what does one make out from those results?..

 

[Vegitto]

San Diego ties or wins in every benchmark, and it's cheaper, too. What do you think that means? It means "Get the San Diego". Also, the San Diego core is a great overclocker .

Now, concerning your previous question of waiting for socket M2, I'm not sure if you should. The thing is, we don't know if dualcore processors are memory-bandwidth starved. You see, M2 comes with DDR2, and that has a lot of bandwidth. Usually, A64's don't care about latencies all that much, they like bandwidth better. But, since nobody has tested this with the Manchester and Toledo cores, no-one knows.

You might just wanna wait for Windsor, which is on M2. But, who am I to say you should wait?

 

[LT4CAMSS]

Vegitta - I'm pretty sure that currently it is the opposite of what you're saying. That is, that the A64 are not very bandwidth starved and I'm pretty sure they like lower latencies more right now. Of course...let's see if anyone else will add to that. Peace...

 

[Vegitto]

Well, it kinda depends on the memory, but there's no big difference between a CL of 2 and a CL of 2.5 when it's with an A64. A 20 MHz increase of memory speed is better (most of the times) than a lower CL.

But, then again, I could be wrong.

 

[Alwyn1892k]

hm.. well i just translated the last conclusion page of that site with google and guess what i got?

Page 07
Report of 28.04.2005

Total total:

The 1MB large L2 Cache could obtain only minimum advantages according to our tests opposite the decreased 512KB L2 Cache of the Venice. Despite same clock rate of both processors, the measurable advantage, San Diego, was in most bench mark only with 1,5-5%. The 3800+ Venice runs ex factory however with one around 200MHz higher processor clock, than its brother that San Diego. If we would have let begin the two processors in the standard work clock, 2400 MHz Venice against 2200 MHz San Diego, that would have San Diego completely clearly and lost clearly. The multi-clock becomes generally accepted also in the 0,09µ production process clearly the larger L2 Cache opposite.

In nearly all plays thus the 3800+ Venice wins against 3700+ San Diego. However also the price plays a crucial role. A 3800+ Venice lies at present with approx. 380 euro, 3700+ San Diego is about 50 euro more cheaply. Thus both processors are quite recommended and it are left to everyone, which processor is sufficient for the own requirements best. For that extremely Overclocker is surely the 512KB L2 Cache version interesting, since this leaves itself minimum better to over clocks.

User those however much multimediabasierende software use, (picture working on -, video and audio software) should possibly also about San Diego think. In any case one is Overclockingpotential properly into both processors and not only with a compressor cooling. Both processors become the Overclockinggemeinde surely much fun prepare.

To the conclusion would like I you a screen of the maximally reached clock of the Venice to point and the superpi 1M test.

Google's translated version

So i guess they first oc'd the san diego to be equal to venice n then did the test.. so that means venice is better?......................

As for the M2, maybe i'll just get the s939 mobo n either of these cpus coz whenever the new cpus come out they obviously won't be as cheap as these, so maybe they r not really worth the wait as i'm most probably thinking of getting a pc before end of this year..

 

[LT4CAMSS]

Alwyn1982k - Good idea. If you don't buy one in the near future, you'll always be waiting. I'm in the same boat. You eventually have to just get a setup. If we don't do that...we'll always be saying "I'm gonna wait for the next best thing." Chances are you won't need an upgrade for quite a while w/ the SD 939, whether single or dual core. Also, I would get the SD b/c it runs cooler and has SSE3 optimizations and an improved memory controller (I don't know how much of a benefit the former has but I assume it'll pay off later). Eventually they might even release some damn drivers or something to allow people to have 4 sticks of ram @ 1T w/ no penalty.


Also, someone experienced w/ the A64 please clear up the bandwidth/latency issue for Vegitto and I (read posts above). Thanks.

 

[imported_Frallan]

The 3700+ SD is your thing...

1Mb cache > 512kb Cache...

And thats the only difference. U can oc a SD but U cant add cache..

 

[LED]

Save some cash and get the 3200 venice and OC it